Video summary

Did RC Secretly Get Harder? | Thinking LSAT, Ep. 568

Main summary

Key takeaways

News and Commentary

Summary of Episode 568 (Thinking LSAT) — Main Coverage & Arguments

1) LSAC quietly removed blue reading-comp highlights (and why it matters)

The hosts discuss an unannounced change by LSAC: the blue highlighting that previously marked the exact passage phrases referenced in Reading Comprehension questions has been removed from the test interface.

  • What it used to do: Blue highlights helped students immediately jump to the relevant section of the passage (e.g., the referenced sentence/paragraph).
  • What it means now: Without that visual cue, students must manually locate referenced parts by counting sentences/paragraphs.
  • Why it’s a downside: Counting is described as slower and more error-prone, especially when sentences are long or punctuation-heavy.

The hosts’ take:

  • The impact likely affects at least a small fraction of questions—but that fraction is still meaningful.
  • The change seems like an accidental or poorly thought-out UX/software decision, especially since LSAC later added additional highlight colors for user highlighting.
  • Because user highlighting is mostly optional and many students don’t highlight, overall impact may not be huge—yet the blue removal benefits everyone who previously relied on it.

Practical advice: Don’t panic—expect some August+ Reading Comp questions where you’ll need to locate exact parts by counting, and plan for it.

2) Strategy debate: should you skip parallel reasoning late in the section?

A viewer email from Christian argues that:

  • He often answers many Logical Reasoning questions correctly early.
  • He tends to run out of time and guesses late.
  • Parallel reasoning takes him 3–5 minutes, though he still gets them right.
  • He wonders whether he should guess or skip parallel reasoning—possibly even going by “whatever appears latest,” regardless of order.

The hosts (especially Ben/Nathan) strongly disagree, emphasizing:

  • It reflects a misunderstanding of long-game scoring.
  • If you skip earlier parallels (e.g., questions like #7 or #17), you typically shift attention to harder later questions, which they note tend to be more difficult.
  • Christian’s real bottleneck is accuracy, not an inability to spend time on parallels; they criticize the idea of targeting speed by sacrificing accuracy improvements.

They also frame parallel reasoning as good practice:

  • Parallel questions act like “supersets” that force you to evaluate multiple arguments.
  • Better handling of parallels can improve elimination speed, so time improves through technique—not by skipping.

Conclusion: Don’t “jump off” the parallel reasoning cliff—focus on improving how you handle parallels rather than giving up points late.

3) News item: University of Chicago bans phones/laptops in 1L classes to reduce AI misuse

A Reuters-reported update: the University of Chicago Law School adopted a new anti-AI-reliance policy that includes:

  • Phones and laptops banned in required first-year courses
  • Professors may designate scribes to take shared electronic notes

Stated rationale:

  • Students should learn to think critically and independently before being taught to use AI tools later.

Host discussion includes two angles:

  • One concern: students might misuse tech during class via audio capture and instant AI responses.
  • Another viewpoint: the deeper issue may be weak classroom engagement, not devices alone.

They also speculate about possible extension to recording hardware (joking about Meta glasses and disabling recording lights).

4) LSAT logistics reminders + study philosophy reinforced

Key reminders from the hosts:

  • The registration deadline for the September LSAT is coming up (July 28).
  • Don’t register if your timed scores aren’t ready—otherwise it wastes money/time/stress, especially since there are multiple additional test dates.

They also highlight viewer success stories stressing:

  • Short, consistent study (e.g., “one quality hour a day”)
  • Understanding the test
  • Accuracy-first study and careful reading
  • Reviewing and discussing questions

5) Personal statement “gong show” critique: Liv’s dense, wordy résumé-speak narrative

The hosts critique an application essay from Liv, focusing on writing clarity:

  • The essay contains too many complicated job-title components
  • It uses excessive lists and résumé-style phrasing (e.g., “reliable evidentiary foundation”)
  • It discusses research methodology in a way that feels too abstract, making it harder for the reader to understand who she is and what happened
  • The “big reveal” at the end suggests the major project was actually a short internship effort, and the hosts worry it may be overselling or missing broader context

Core feedback: write more conversationally, tell a real story, cut redundancy, and build a clearer “why this matters” arc.

A second, related email later (from Liv/Olivia) adds a separate concern:

  • She worries an internship in an ICE-related context is politically controversial.
  • The hosts say they’re less concerned about the politics and more concerned with narrative credibility—not overselling one project and zooming out to show a fuller profile.

6) Q&A: Should Sophia do a master’s before law school?

Sophia (149 LSAT, 3.65 GPA) asks whether to pursue a Masters of Public Affairs at UT Austin (full ride) and delay law school until 2028.

Hosts’ stance:

  • Master’s programs are often low value for JD admissions when compared to the opportunity cost (time, living expenses, and delaying LSAT readiness).
  • They emphasize Sophia’s priority: focus on substantially improving the LSAT.
  • They imply her situation likely requires a much higher score than incremental change—especially since she’s still in the 140s.

Presenters / Contributors

  • Nathan Fox — co-founder of LSAT Demon; presenter
  • Ben Olsen — co-founder of LSAT Demon; presenter
  • Producers/other contributors mentioned
    • Matt — Demon head tutor; contributor via comments
    • Obby — Demon teacher; contributor via comments
    • Jacob — producer; mentioned for contacting award winners

Viewer contributors whose emails were read

  • Christian
  • Sophia
  • Jonathan
  • Luke
  • Payton
  • Jake
  • L
  • Liv / Olivia

News source

  • Reuters (article mentioned; author not named in the subtitles beyond “Karen Sloan” as the headline selector)

Original video